超越权衡:探索历史长河中养老和健康领域公共和私人福利供给不断变化的相互作用

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of European Social Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-04 DOI:10.1177/09589287241245656
Alexander Horn, Sebastian Kohl
{"title":"超越权衡:探索历史长河中养老和健康领域公共和私人福利供给不断变化的相互作用","authors":"Alexander Horn, Sebastian Kohl","doi":"10.1177/09589287241245656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern welfare states compete with private providers of welfare in offering economic security. This is most evident in the case of pensions competing with life insurance and private pensions as well as of public health insurance competing with private insurance providers. The common view of this public–private relationship is one of a trade-off: longitudinally, political scientists describe how retrenchment was pushed by privatized welfare, whereas economists trace the crowding-out of private to public welfare provisions. Cross-sectionally, they claim that countries have lower public spending levels because they have a large private sector. We suggest a more nuanced view. Drawing on a new long-run panel data of public pension and private life insurance expenditures and contributions in 20 OECD countries since Bismarck to the current day, we show that in the postwar years a cross-sectional trade-off emerged, which then faded. Longitudinally, complementary relationships of public and private provision growth have become the norm. We argue theoretically and show empirically that trade-offs only occur if governments still hold (waning) anti-interventionist and pro-market views.","PeriodicalId":47919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond trade-offs: Exploring the changing interplay of public and private welfare provision in old age and health in the historical long-run\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Horn, Sebastian Kohl\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09589287241245656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern welfare states compete with private providers of welfare in offering economic security. This is most evident in the case of pensions competing with life insurance and private pensions as well as of public health insurance competing with private insurance providers. The common view of this public–private relationship is one of a trade-off: longitudinally, political scientists describe how retrenchment was pushed by privatized welfare, whereas economists trace the crowding-out of private to public welfare provisions. Cross-sectionally, they claim that countries have lower public spending levels because they have a large private sector. We suggest a more nuanced view. Drawing on a new long-run panel data of public pension and private life insurance expenditures and contributions in 20 OECD countries since Bismarck to the current day, we show that in the postwar years a cross-sectional trade-off emerged, which then faded. Longitudinally, complementary relationships of public and private provision growth have become the norm. We argue theoretically and show empirically that trade-offs only occur if governments still hold (waning) anti-interventionist and pro-market views.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287241245656\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287241245656","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代福利国家在提供经济保障方面与私人福利提供者展开竞争。最明显的例子是养老金与人寿保险和私人养老金的竞争,以及公共医疗保险与私人保险提供者的竞争。对这种公私关系的普遍看法是一种权衡:纵向来看,政治学家描述了私有化福利如何推动紧缩,而经济学家则追溯了私人福利对公共福利的挤出。从横截面来看,他们声称各国的公共开支水平较低是因为它们拥有庞大的私营部门。我们提出了一种更为细致的观点。我们利用自俾斯麦时期至今 20 个经合组织国家的公共养老金和私人人寿保险支出和缴费的新的长期面板数据,表明在战后出现了横向权衡,随后这种权衡逐渐消失。从纵向来看,公共和私人供款增长的互补关系已成为常态。我们从理论上论证并从经验上表明,只有当政府仍然持有(正在减弱的)反干预主义和亲市场观点时,才会出现权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beyond trade-offs: Exploring the changing interplay of public and private welfare provision in old age and health in the historical long-run
Modern welfare states compete with private providers of welfare in offering economic security. This is most evident in the case of pensions competing with life insurance and private pensions as well as of public health insurance competing with private insurance providers. The common view of this public–private relationship is one of a trade-off: longitudinally, political scientists describe how retrenchment was pushed by privatized welfare, whereas economists trace the crowding-out of private to public welfare provisions. Cross-sectionally, they claim that countries have lower public spending levels because they have a large private sector. We suggest a more nuanced view. Drawing on a new long-run panel data of public pension and private life insurance expenditures and contributions in 20 OECD countries since Bismarck to the current day, we show that in the postwar years a cross-sectional trade-off emerged, which then faded. Longitudinally, complementary relationships of public and private provision growth have become the norm. We argue theoretically and show empirically that trade-offs only occur if governments still hold (waning) anti-interventionist and pro-market views.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of European Social Policy publishes articles on all aspects of social policy in Europe. Papers should make a contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field, and we particularly welcome scholarly papers which integrate innovative theoretical insights and rigorous empirical analysis, as well as those which use or develop new methodological approaches. The Journal is interdisciplinary in scope and both social policy and Europe are conceptualized broadly. Articles may address multi-level policy making in the European Union and elsewhere; provide cross-national comparative studies; and include comparisons with areas outside Europe.
期刊最新文献
What works? Researching participants’ experiences of a social policy RCT through qualitative interviews Cross-class solidarity in times of crisis: the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on support for redistribution COVID-19 hits care homes: A cross-national study of mortality rates Targeted transfers, a left-wing policy? The impact of left-wing governments and corporatism on transfers to low-income families (1982–2019) Help or harm? Examining the effects of active labour market programmes on young adults’ employment quality and the role of social origin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1